This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Nuclear disarmament

Sadly we live in a world that contains humans.

Therefore, having a nuclear threat hovering over anyone who would wish to attack us with WMD's (I believe this is current US policy) seems one of the better deterrents against a nation-state attacking us with such.

Re: Nuclear disarmament

Rounding off the list of terrible ideas......

"We have more responsibility than power, I think. The newspaper can create great controversies, stir up arguments within the community or discussion, can throw light on injustices....just as it can do the opposite. It can hide things and be a great power for evil." -- Rupert Murdoch, 1968

Re: Nuclear disarmament

I am fully behind torturing people for information. Asides from spies, it's our best way to obtain intel on the enemy, intel that saves innocent lives, and not just American ones. Torture is a horrible, immoral, evil action, much like blowing up innocent bystanders. Every child blown up by a drone strike is a failure on our part, because there was a lesser evil we could have committed that would not have led to that child's death. An action's morality is judged by its outcome; torture puts a few people through Hell, while drone strikes destroy infrastructure and kill innocents. While neither is moral, one is clearly the lesser evil.

Re: Nuclear disarmament

What's hilarious is to consider two of the most belligerent countries on Earth credible to declare "dangerous" a country that hasn't attacked anyone in nearly two hundred years.

LOL !

Yes, it's not Iran who is the leading State sponsor of terror in the world, or North Korea, who's run by a twisted dictator that starves his people and sends thousands off to prison camps or Russia who invades and attacks its neighbor, or even Cuba who condems its own people to perpetua poverty as its Leaders live in luxury who are the most belligerent.

No, its America and Israel.....

Wow.

You people will never be taken seriously if you continue to offer up nonsensical anti-American rhetoric like that

Re: Nuclear disarmament

Originally Posted by Fenton

LOL !

Yes, it's not Iran who is the leading State sponsor of terror in the world, or North Korea, who's run by a twisted dictator that starves his people and sends thousands off to prison camps or Russia who invades and attacks its neighbor, or even Cuba who condems its own people to perpetua poverty as its Leaders live in luxury who are the most belligerent.

No, its America and Israel.....

Wow.

You people will never be taken seriously if you continue to offer up nonsensical anti-American rhetoric like that

1. Liberals will never take conservatives like myself seriously, because to do so would be their undoing, as their beliefs are inherently unreasonable.

2. I don't know why you're babbling about Communist potholes like Cuba and North Korea.

3. America and Israel have a long history of aggression, and America has a history of supporting terrorist groups (e.g. KSC, FSA). America is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in war, and Israel the only country presently known to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

4. Iran lasted started a war in 1826.

5. There's still no evidence that Iran is trying to make a nuclear bomb. Paranoia is not evidence.

6. The supreme religious authority and head of state of Iran has officially declared production of nuclear weapons to be against their religion.

7. Even if Iran were trying to make a nuclear bomb, while bad, it would most likely be intended as a deterrent against American or Israeli attack.

Re: Nuclear disarmament

Absolutely not! I'm a socialist, but I'm also a nationalist, and I think democracy and human rights can best be safeguarded by a powerful bulwark of liberal (relatively, hah) politics like Britain, the USA, or France. I would never advocate nuclear disarmament for the West.

Re: Nuclear disarmament

We should modernize our weapons and make them smaller and more lethal. Our nukes should always be superior.

"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Re: Nuclear disarmament

I went with "Other" as I think we ideally need to reduce the size of our overall arsenal, but at the same time we need to modernize our arsenal as well. Our nuclear arsenal is quite old and its questionable as to whether some of its even usable as we have not tested anything in over 20 years. If an nuclear arsenal is supposed to be a deterrent, then you can't simply build a stockpile and expect that initial stockpile to continue to be a deterrent several decades later.

As much as I would like to live in a world without nuclear weapons, the fact is we live in a world with them. The cat is out of the bag. A world without nuclear weapons is as realistic as one without computers.

"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

Re: Nuclear disarmament

Even though we live in a post-Cold War world, the prospect of nuclear warfare is still a possibility, however slim. Should we take steps to eliminate our nuclear weapons, and if yes, how so?

I made the poll multiple choice due to the complex nature of nuclear disarmament and the steps that may be taken in order to achieve it.

If I was stupid enough to trust the governments of other countries I would be for nuclear disarmament. However I do not trust the governments of other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons. So I am not for nuclear disarmament.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"